Ta!
Ta!It was when he first came in, he said if legal action was dropped and all of the council's legal fees were paid he would help with the Wasps discussions. Previously he had distanced himself from them to say it was up to Wasps.
Don't get me wrong, if the judge says "pay £2m legal fees" then they should be paid. This was before anything was awarded.
A 3% contribution or is there more to that as my eyes hurt trying to read it?
I get that but isn't that just giving detail of how they arrived at the valuation. A couple of pages before that it states that the valuation is the amount they would expect if the lease was sold on the valuation date. Which would mean its not a random amount for accounting purposes or a potential future earnings figure.
Only problem with that theory Daventry is getting someone to buy at that price buddyI get that but isn't that just giving detail of how they arrived at the valuation. A couple of pages before that it states that the valuation is the amount they would expect if the lease was sold on the valuation date. Which would mean its not a random amount for accounting purposes or a potential future earnings figure.
So we know that in Nov 2014 ACL was worth £5.54m with the 50 year lease. We also know at that time a 200 year extension was worth £1m.
Then 4 months later the lease alone is worth £48.5m.
Now with the best will in the world there's no way Wasps turning up has added tens of millions to the value to the lease so the question is, when Wasps purchased ACL and a 200 year lease extension for a total of £6.5m what was the lease valued at?
ACL I presume had other assets and of course there was the loan of £14m.
So lets say Wasps paid £6.5m for everything and paid of the loan. That's £20m in total and in return they got 100% ownership of a company with an asset worth £48.5m?
It may well be all above board but it just doesn't seem right to me. Theoretically they could have sold the lease on the date of valuation, folded ACL and be £28m up!
Edit... Dave.... damn auto typeOnly problem with that theory Daventry is getting someone to buy at that price buddy
Sent from my 5010X using Tapatalk
It's called business. Speculation, investment, some come off a little some a lot. Whoever at sisu decided not to get involved with the Ricoh cost their business and possibly investors millions. I wonder if the investor partners know ?I get that but isn't that just giving detail of how they arrived at the valuation. A couple of pages before that it states that the valuation is the amount they would expect if the lease was sold on the valuation date. Which would mean its not a random amount for accounting purposes or a potential future earnings figure.
So we know that in Nov 2014 ACL was worth £5.54m with the 50 year lease. We also know at that time a 200 year extension was worth £1m.
Then 4 months later the lease alone is worth £48.5m.
Now with the best will in the world there's no way Wasps turning up has added tens of millions to the value to the lease so the question is, when Wasps purchased ACL and a 200 year lease extension for a total of £6.5m what was the lease valued at?
ACL I presume had other assets and of course there was the loan of £14m.
So lets say Wasps paid £6.5m for everything and paid of the loan. That's £20m in total and in return they got 100% ownership of a company with an asset worth £48.5m?
It may well be all above board but it just doesn't seem right to me. Theoretically they could have sold the lease on the date of valuation, folded ACL and be £28m up!
Surely if finding someone to buy at the valuation price would be a problem it would be an indication the valuation is too high?Only problem with that theory Daventry is getting someone to buy at that price buddy
I get that but isn't that just giving detail of how they arrived at the valuation. A couple of pages before that it states that the valuation is the amount they would expect if the lease was sold on the valuation date. Which would mean its not a random amount for accounting purposes or a potential future earnings figure.
So we know that in Nov 2014 ACL was worth £5.54m with the 50 year lease. We also know at that time a 200 year extension was worth £1m.
Then 4 months later the lease alone is worth £48.5m.
Now with the best will in the world there's no way Wasps turning up has added tens of millions to the value to the lease so the question is, when Wasps purchased ACL and a 200 year lease extension for a total of £6.5m what was the lease valued at?
ACL I presume had other assets and of course there was the loan of £14m.
So lets say Wasps paid £6.5m for everything and paid of the loan. That's £20m in total and in return they got 100% ownership of a company with an asset worth £48.5m?
It may well be all above board but it just doesn't seem right to me. Theoretically they could have sold the lease on the date of valuation, folded ACL and be £28m up!
It is valueless because nobody would be interested in the RicohSurely if finding someone to buy at the valuation price would be a problem it would be an indication the valuation is too high?
Surely if finding someone to buy at the valuation price would be a problem it would be an indication the valuation is too high?
Interesting. Would it therefore not have been in the council's interest to sell ACL a 200 year lease extension prior to the sale to Wasps?Incidentally 50 years lease would not have valued any where near as high
Exactly my point Dave I was actually agreeing with youSurely if finding someone to buy at the valuation price would be a problem it would be an indication the valuation is too high?
Interesting. Would it therefore not have been in the council's interest to sell ACL a 200 year lease extension prior to the sale to Wasps?
Seems odd not to, especially as the extension was agreed in the same council meeting as the sale of ACL.
Interesting. Would it therefore not have been in the council's interest to sell ACL a 200 year lease extension prior to the sale to Wasps?
Seems odd not to, especially as the extension was agreed in the same council meeting as the sale of ACL.
Odd indeed!
It is also odd Higgs have not raised the issue
BTW: It is very difficult to get funding for any leasehold property with <50 years to run
The kind offer of the council to extend the lease before their debt was repaid got rid of that little problem.
More to the point why didn't they extend the lease for the benefit of the charity involved.
It's almost like they wanted it to fail...
You might think that but will the Appeal Court?
I doubt they are laughing - have you seen that lot doing the BREXIT appeal?
Interesting. Would it therefore not have been in the council's interest to sell ACL a 200 year lease extension prior to the sale to Wasps?
.
Sisu will need to reject much of what they argued in JR1 argue greater value existed that they under bid for before even beginning to form a case for compensation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?